ScarletRose:This board helps lower my blood pressure. 

ScarletRose: "And peeps always complain that a woman is Itchy with a B?"

I think no one would dispute that statement across the entire political spectrum. LOL :o)

The Usurper: "Sticks tongue out and ThhhhhhhhBbbsssstttttttttttttt!!! "  :P~

ScarletRose: I rest my case. lol
:o)))

Artful Dodger: You'd be wrong then.

Czuch: .. then if you think it includes the President, you can't make fun of your current president.

... And please... censorship.. That's been in place since WW! or WWII.

(V): "... And please... censorship.. That's been in place since WW! or WWII."

Very true, and a good point. So much so, that most of the pundits on TV can't properly be criticized personally for what they say, at least not directly so....since they are using talking-points or slants as dictated by their superiors. They are more like sponges without real opinions, ready to obsorb the next factoid or spin.

The Usurper: Our TV over here, has rules and limits. And viewers are free to complain to the regulators if they are offended. Sometimes such complaints are upheld and the broadcaster is 'told off', sometimes not.

Sometimes, the news publishers will work with the gov and/or police to keep certain info quiet, to protect or to aid the efforts into an enquiry.

... Or as in the case of recently deceased it is considered bad form to print or broadcast names before the family is informed... Especially in regards to soldiers names who have been KIA.

But maybe that is just very good manners.

(V): Yes, some things are clearly a matter of etiquette, not free speech. And free speech, moreover, applies to us as individuals, not necessarily to a broadcaster who is paid to do a job.

But this statement....

"Sometimes, the news publishers will work with the gov and/or police to keep certain info quiet, to protect or to aid the efforts into an enquiry."

...yes that can be true, and even justifiable, as you well know. Unfortunately, sometimes (on certain topics, oftentimes) this collaborative relationship between government & media has a more sinister aspect....which is why we must turn to alternate sources of news to get the real scoop on certain issues.

Artful Dodger: I suggest you refresh yourself on your 'guidlines--

* No 'flaming' - in other words, avoid personal attacks, pettiness, abuse. Respect other users, and if you disagree with them, explain why. Posts that are considered aggressively offensive will be subject to moderation.

This may be your own personally moderated playpen, but accussing me of exploiting lost soldiers is pretty offensive, grow up

Your tasteless assertion logically leads to the assumption that if a network such as MSNBC(which I also find too slanted for my tastes) ,or any other network were to broadcast the same program content I would avoid voicing my disgust at the "comedy"

I'm a proud Canadian, and your dark cynicism is beyond rude

Jim Dandy: That is a personal attack in my view....
Im surprised you havent been moderated......perhaps AD is asleep, or where is Vikings.....he is right onto it all the time...

Bernice: Now now Bernice. Remember what Czuch said about censorship, he's your ally....and remember all those censorship quotes? You can't be looking to have people moderated just because they argue with AD. :o)

And I've more-or-less stayed out of this debate. I've been interested to watch it & consider the arguments of both sides.

Bernice: No.. He is stating he is Canadian. Therefore he has a right by nature of his nationality and his love for his country's soldiers and military to be upset.

I mean... Do you like it when soldiers from your country get killed in action, or are put down? I'm sorry if I'm wrong.. but you seem to me to be proud of where you live.

Bernice: Frankly my opinion of the allegation directed my way is more important than being moded,it was a cheap personal shot

(V): then if you think it includes the President, you can't make fun of your current president.

How is it you always seem to get the simple things all twisted up????

My argument here is that comedians poking fun at the canadian military is no different from them poking fun at our president.... no matter who they make jokes about someone is going to be "offended".

My question to you all, is why you think the canadian military deserves special treatment? (okay, I have heard your arguments why already) but if you then give them exemption from comical parody, why stop there? Why is it okay to parody my president? You see yet? Just because someone is offended, doesnt matter, and if you still think it does,,then what i want from you is a list of what is off limits to comedians.... is it just the canadian military, or are there others on your list?

Czuch: Well.. From my point of view your argument fails. And there are other things on my list, many other things. But that is my personal feelings. I can't expect everyone else to feel the same, but just to acknowledge that I (like you) have the right to those feelings. We might not agree, but we still have the right to feel.

STOP!!!! Listen... Do you hear that???

BARKING LITTLE YIPPERS???  Nipping at everything.. YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP!!!!

I am most happy to know that this is on a message board rather than a political talk show.. to which I would have to sit in the audience and throw not one shoe.. but, both shoes at the Yappers.. and if tempted a rotten piece of fruit or three..

ScarletRose: You're asking for a good nipping. lol :o)

Thanks for enlivening the board. Don't throw high-heeled shoes! This is contrary to International Treaty and the Geneva Convention. ;o)

The Usurper: Don't let her throw any shoes, cuz I smelled her shoes and they are in violation of the Chemical Warfare portion of the Geneva Convention

Apaleunicorn: At times I put them out in the storeage sheds and they kill all of the poor mouses

Apaleunicorn: You turd.. LOL

(V): And there are other things on my list, many other things

name them

(V): so you are advocating to be the worlds big brother? Or maybe I miss your point as well? Are you saying it is in bad taste but you respect their right to do it anyway?

(V):  So would you. 

ScarletRose:     This is what we do on a politics discussion board.  We yap.  Now pull up a seat.  ;)

Jim Dandy: Jim Dandy: But it is exploitive I also see it as feigned indignation. Your outrage is out of proportion to the offense. Your hatred for Fox News is well known. So I see it as an excuse to take a shot at Fox. But it's dishonest. It's not about Fox. It's about a show that mocks the news and how in this case, they stepped over the line. There was a huge backlash over it. The host had to retract the statement. BTW, the Canadian authorities accepted the apology. So that makes it no longer an issue. People exploit these kinds of situations all the time. The video you posted exploits the situation. The outrage is way out of proportion to what was said by a group of comedians. The comedians suffered from the backlash. One had his upcoming comedy show cancelled. People threatened to boycott the advertisers.
The statements made on that show were insensitive and insulting. They were made worse by the fact that 4 Canadian solders had been killed just days before the airing of the show. You want to be mad over that? Then be mad in the right direction and at the right people. But don't exploit it for your own use. That's what I see you have done. Keep it all in perspective. Had a US politician said those things, your level of outrage would be justified. Had the President said them, even more. But a group of comedians on a late night show that mocks the news? Not so much.

ScarletRose: Yeaahhh throw the fruit. I can compost it.

Czuch: All?

Artful Dodger: Nope.

Artful Dodger: They were not mocking the news, they were mocking the Canadian Military.

And as I said, if people in the UK can get canned for making inappropiate jokes.. why can't the same apply to another joke making people?

And ya know the BBC... the jokers who got canned... they got told off as well, and had to apologise. IE they were the ones who employed the jokers, and by right should set standards on what their people are allowed to do.

Apaleunicorn: Damn.. you have a cottage industry there!! If ya can compress it, then you have a passive crowd disperser for sale.

Apaleunicorn: "Don't let her throw any shoes, cuz I smelled her shoes and they are in violation of the Chemical Warfare portion of the Geneva Convention"

Maybe my politics has been wrong all along. We need a bigger homegrown terrorism budget! lol

(V): Yep.

(V): They make fun of the news. In this case the news was about the Canadian military. Some here in the US can also get canned (and have) for over the top remarks. But it's rare. We do have a thing called freedom of speech here in the US. It does have its limits, but in this case, the use of their freedom of speech came back and bit them in the butt. I think the backlash was sufficient to send them a strong message and likely they got it. So all this talking about it really surprises me. Nothing else will change by rehashing it over and over. And repeating your same points isn't necessary now is it?

Artful Dodger: The talking has carried on because of the talk that carried it on. People will voice their feelings here. You know that.

And no.

(V): Not just here but on the net people have gone on and on and on about it. Phony outrage designed to score points. That sort of nonsense happens in politics all the time. Both sides of the political spectrum (and all points inbetween) practice this dishonesty. I think the left is the worst at it but the right is not immune to such displays of exploitation and dishonestly either. Some reported the story in a legitimate and honest way. But most exploited it. When the level of outrage is greater than the level of the offense, something else is at play.

Artful Dodger: Mmmmmm all phoney? Or the reaction is just not what you anticipated?

And no Art.... It's all the same, saying the left does it more is score pointing by the right... and the left saying the right do it more is score pointing by the left.

Sorry, but empirical evidence from watching our Houses of Parliament at work does not support your assumption.

Artful Dodger: I could not disagree more.You're implying that I would find it less offensive if it was broadcast on any network other than Fox, I find that beyond rude.You don't know me personally, and I don't know you. Do I agree with the typical slant Fox projects? no, but I have pointed out countless times that I don't like slanted news period, and have given other examples such as MSNBC.

Again,I find it very offensive that you would imply that I would gladly park my feelings towards our brave men of the military dependent upon which network broadcasts the story.When this story surfaced I didn't lookat it as a left or right thing, the military is populated by people of all political backgrounds, and I'm sure all were equally offended.I was actually shocked that the source was a Fox broadcast, they usually hold the military in the highest esteem.

Jim Dandy: Well, I find it odd that you emphasized the fact that it happened on "Fox News." That line was dishonest. It didn't happen on Fox News. Some headlines got it right and were accurate about the entire story. They didn't have to resort to half-truths to make their point. You intentionally distorted the truth.

Artful Dodger: Oh Blimey.. fox news.. fox channel, yatta, yatta, yatta.

(V): Not the same Jules and you know it. Or are you suggesting that if The Simpson's cartoon show has a controversial topic on it can be blamed on Fox News? It's not Fox News, it's The Fox News Channel or simply Fox. When someone says "Fox News" they lump it all together. Hogwash. Rubbish. Nonsense. Be specific. Here are some dishonest headlines:

Fox News jokesters forced into retreat over Canadian military
Fox News apologizes to Canada for troop remarks
tons of these examples

And more honest:
FOX News (RED EYE) Insults Canada - Blogger News Network
Red Eye vs. Canada, Eh? Gutfeld Apologizes - mediabistro.com: TVNewser
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld-Invade Canada? - AOL Video
Red Eye Host Forced to Apologize to Canada / Jossip
Fox News Show Red Eye Mocks Canada - iReport.com

One reports dishonestly and the other honestly and accuractly.

CRTC approves Fox News for CanadaNov 18, 2004 ... Fox News will be coming to Canadian digital television after CRTC approves application by cable association.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html

I'll bet some Canadian are fans of the show. Even still.

Artful Dodger: fox... fox... fox.

(V): It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about here.

Artful Dodger: I do. Just admit it for once.

(V): Not really. I clearly know more about this than you would. But it doesn't matter to me. Think whatever you like.

Artful Dodger: I do.

(V): All?

Sure, why not... Id like to know what kind of world we would live in if you were in charge of the censorship...

BTW, I must have missed all the angry posts from you all when Bam had a laugh at the expense of handicapped people?????? Disabled must not be on your list I guess...

(V): And as I said, if people in the UK can get canned for making inappropiate jokes.. why can't the same apply to another joke making people?

So you would support then, I guess Bam being fired for joking about the disabled right??? hahahah

Czuch: He didn't, he used the wrong analogy and screwed up because of that. It is then to choose whether you think the man had a temporary attack of idiocy (as we all do being human) ... or is a idiot fall stop.

The vote is out as it's too early to tell.

Censorship... Mmmmm Difficult, my main thing would be adverts that don't tell the truth or are designed to pray on peoples fears attenuated by a Hollywood culture that requires a very big bank account to realistically meet the false idol the adverts 'project' as being real rather then delusional.

TV... it's a thing of the moment, one cannot tell until one has seen. But I certainly wouldn't be a 'mary'..... British TV, etc... is so much more open then your US system.